Re: filmscanners: Stealing images
"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side. Good grief. Just about every ASP file written depends on javascript. For what it's worth, the code I mentioned IS javascript but it seems to have been more important to figure out whether I used the right word than whether the idea of a little simple image protection might be worthwhile. I will not respond to any further discussion on that topic. > Anyway, all you have to do is turn off Java or Javascript to get past things > like this. Some surfers, including myself, have these turned off by default for > security reasons. If the display of your image depends on Java or Javascript, > and your visitor doesn't have it, chances are he will simply leave the site > rather than try to find a way to see your image. Then it's "his" loss. The code I'm talking about doesn't determine whether the image is displayed. It just intercepts the right mouse click to make it a little harder for people to steal images without permission. I thought it might be a useful idea for others who are scanning their photos to put them on the web. The other two things I've been doing consist of watermarking large images (the facility is built into PSP 7) and putting on a copyright notice. None of this stops anyone from taking data if they want to, but it at least gives the owner more of a leg to stand on if it comes to an argument over ownership. Obscanning: My standard procedure for scanning is now to scan a film as soon as I can after I take it. The filename is based on the date in reverse date order and a sequence number and frame number. I save it as an LZW TIFF raw file and crop file. The I make a 1024x768 jpeg with copyright notice and watermark, and a 300x200 jpeg for a "thumbnail". I write the raw files and crop files to different CDRs with the jpegs if possible for easy identification. The CDR is named the same way as the film. Hopefully a naming convention which is logical to me but doesn't give away the content is less of an invitation for theft than "mona_lisa.jpg" - especially via search engines. :) Rob
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images
Rob writes: > For what it's worth, the code I mentioned IS > javascript but it seems to have been more > important to figure out whether I used the right > word ... The difference between Java and Javascript is enormous, despite the similar names, so it is important to refer to each correctly. > Then it's "his" loss. Not if you are hoping that he will buy _your_ images. > The code I'm talking about doesn't determine whether > the image is displayed. It just intercepts the > right mouse click to make it a little harder for > people to steal images without permission. In that case, if he has Javascript turned off, he'll be able to see the image _and_ right-click on it to save it. > The other two things I've been doing consist of > watermarking large images (the facility is built > into PSP 7) and putting on a copyright notice. Visible watermarks are not a bad idea, but digital watermarks are a waste of time (I'm not sure which type of watermark PSP 7 provides). A copyright notice is informative for honest people, but it is not an obstacle to the dishonest. > I save it as an LZW TIFF raw file and crop file. Are the raw files really useful enough to justify the space they occupy? I usually save images as JPEGs with minimal compression, after carefully tweaking each scan.
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images
Unusable (to others) filenames would seem quite a reasonable step to prevent search engines finding your images - but you will not be able to use useful descriptive text. I would also point out that search engines only generally index pages of registered domains or those that you volunteer to tell them about. Although working this way will prevent memorable domain names (eg. wordweb), restricts web space and bandwidth and so is of limited use to most. The thumbnail size is reasonably sensible as I am sick of looking at web pages where they are too small. It's infuriating when you have to open the thumbnail to see what it is meant to represent. I think you could go a little smaller but for detailed images you soon get to a situation where you cannot see anything. It's a tricky balance between quick loading and useable. Most importantly you have to remember that unlike you the surfer doesn't know what's in the picture and their brain won't be able distinguish the images as easily as yourself. At the risk of supporting either AA or AF (both AH, yes that's personal, but we've all had more than enough arguing for arguings sake - shut up or push off). I would say that you want the large image to be full page but not overspill. So I would use something a little smaller to display full-screen at 1024x768 (the most common in my experience - even on poor quality 15" monitors that can bearly do it). The people with poor monitors tend to push them to the limit - the people with decent monitors tend to appreciate the quality so stick to the lower resolutions. My decent quality ageing 17" monitor can just about do 1600*1200 but I have very rarely used it even for a few minutes I much prefer the quality of the lower resolutions. The point (other than an on-topic dig) is that a 1024*768 image will have scroll bars round it at 1024*768 - you need to allow a little for the edges of the window and the title bar. With copyright (and bandwidth) worries smaller is also better as you can make a surprisingly decent print out of a high quality 1024*768. I think something like a 600*400 (or even smaller) image will look good on most screens, whilst at least limiting print use if not web use. Steve - Original Message - From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 11:22 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images > I save it as an LZW TIFF raw file > and crop file. The I make a 1024x768 jpeg with copyright notice and > watermark, > and a 300x200 jpeg for a "thumbnail". I write the raw files and crop files > to > different CDRs with the jpegs if possible for easy identification. The CDR > is > named the same way as the film. Hopefully a naming convention which is > logical to me but doesn't give away the content is less of an invitation for > theft than "mona_lisa.jpg" - especially via search engines. :) > > Rob > > >
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images
Steve Greenbank wrote: > The point (other than an on-topic dig) is that a 1024*768 image > will have scroll bars round it at 1024*768 - you need to allow > a little for the edges of the window and the title bar. With > copyright (and bandwidth) worries smaller is also better as you > can make a surprisingly decent print out of a high quality > 1024*768. I think something like a 600*400 (or even smaller) > image will look good on most screens, whilst at least limiting > print use if not web use. OK, for web use I see your point. Actually, making the 1024x768 images was for my own purposes, and embedding the copyright message was in case I wanted to send someone a decent sized sample by email or snail mail. At the moment I think the only images I have online at 1024x768 are some I made available for friends who were involved in a recent trip. For the future I agree that a smaller size would be better. I am going to redesign some XML code so that the pictures are always displayed with a web page not on their own as a file in a browser - at the moment the page launches a new browser window containing only the jpeg not a web page displaying it. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey wrote: > musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal > item. Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be very small. > I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web > search engines. I doubt it because of the relatively low "value" attributed to web images. They're not worth large amounts to any major corporations. It may be very important to a photographer like you or I, but we can't afford the sorts of legal bills required to chase these things. Want to bet that it wasn't any individual musician who chased Napster? >Beyond all of the above: >We don't like it when our images are appropriated. No. I am beginning to wonder how many of mine have been. I found out a while back that a scan I made of an opal was appropriated by Microsoft Encarta online - without a request or attribution of the source. Judging by the website logs, it appears that other images on my site are being used by other web sites who have actually linked to my site rather than copying the images - this means I am effectively paying for their convenience! It's hard to avoid this sort of thing. I don't have time to set up the means to avoid it. One quick method would be to use symbolic links to files and rename the links. Periodically renaming the links would ensure that anyone linking to the files would find the links broken, and the search engine links would break also. The renaming would have to be done by server-end code. Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of discouragement of theft. It's a brave new world, and it's not easy for trusting folks to avoid being shafted by those who are taking advantage of the web's open nature. The web was oiginally conceived by academics for academics, not by anyone whose income derived from their art - and needed copyright protection. Rob PS I would also suggest that avoiding filenames which obviously relate to content is probably a good idea. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners:Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message > if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's > relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of > discouragement > of theft. you mean javascript I think yes that's a good idea. In fact I might search that out. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob Geraghty wrote: > Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
RE: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
It was not Metallica alone; they had vast support from the recording industry as well as some other artists and writers. However, if one does not take things literally, Rob has a point since Metallica is a very wealther band with significant influence and revenue generating capacity - the group may even be incorporated as a corporate entity. At any rate, it was the organization, Metallica, that took on Napster and not the individual band members as individuals. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 3:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images Rob Geraghty wrote: > Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey writes: > Actually it was a band called Metallica. If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game.
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Harvey writes: > > > Actually it was a band called Metallica. > > If it had been only them, they would have lost very early in the game. Since this is your opinion vs my opinion, I'm not going to debate with youBut I will point out that they felt that their losses were in the millions of dollars, and for that money, it *would* makes sense for them to pursue it with really good lawyers. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Harvey wrote: > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Want to bet that it wasn't > > any individual musician who chased Napster? > Actually it was a band called Metallica. And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money I'm shocked and impressed. Rob
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob Geraghty wrote: > Harvey wrote: > > > Rob Geraghty wrote: > > > Want to bet that it wasn't > > > any individual musician who chased Napster? > > Actually it was a band called Metallica. > > And they paid for the WHOLE court case? I'm prepared to be educated here - > if they did pay for the whole thing out of their own money I'm shocked and > impressed. Obviously, they did not pay for the whole thingBut they paid a lot of money to ge the ball rolling. I fail to understand why there seems to be so much animosity towards protecting *OUR* rights in all of this...It is beyond me, and it saddens me, but perhaps it's just al the current news (terrorists et al). Harvey Ferdschneider partner, Skid Photography, NYC (about a mile from the World Trade Center)
Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
I would definitely pursue the Encarta infringement. Mr. Bill "deep pockets" Gates needs a few lessons in etiquette, it would appear. Art Rob Geraghty wrote: > > Harvey wrote: > > musical (intellectual) property is now a *very* hot legal > > item. > > Only because it's worth billions to some very big corporations like Sony > and HMV. If it was only the artists screaming, the care factor would be > very small. > > > I maintain that the same will be true of imagery on web > > search engines. > > I doubt it because of the relatively low "value" attributed to web images. > They're not worth large amounts to any major corporations. It may be very > important to a photographer like you or I, but we can't afford the sorts > of legal bills required to chase these things. Want to bet that it wasn't > any individual musician who chased Napster? > > >Beyond all of the above: > >We don't like it when our images are appropriated. > > No. I am beginning to wonder how many of mine have been. I found out a > while back that a scan I made of an opal was appropriated by Microsoft Encarta > online - without a request or attribution of the source. Judging by the > website logs, it appears that other images on my site are being used by > other web sites who have actually linked to my site rather than copying > the images - this means I am effectively paying for their convenience! > > It's hard to avoid this sort of thing. I don't have time to set up the > means to avoid it. One quick method would be to use symbolic links to files > and rename the links. Periodically renaming the links would ensure that > anyone linking to the files would find the links broken, and the search > engine links would break also. The renaming would have to be done by server-end > code. Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message > if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's > relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of discouragement > of theft. > > It's a brave new world, and it's not easy for trusting folks to avoid being > shafted by those who are taking advantage of the web's open nature. The > web was oiginally conceived by academics for academics, not by anyone whose > income derived from their art - and needed copyright protection. > > Rob > > PS I would also suggest that avoiding filenames which obviously relate to > content is probably a good idea. > > Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://wordweb.com
filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
John wrote: >on 9/10/01 1:57 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Another neat piece of java code I saw recently pops up a message >> if someone tries to use the right-click save-as option on a picture. It's >> relatively trivial to get around, but at least it's *some* sort of >> discouragement >> of theft. >you mean javascript I think >yes that's a good idea. In fact I might search that out. AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. The only Javascript I've used is server side code in an ASP. But I don't want to start an argument about it! Suffice to say that the code is embedded in the header of the web page and interpreted by the browser not the server. :) Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re:filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
on 9/10/01 7:24 PM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> you mean javascript I think >> yes that's a good idea. In fact I might search that out. > > AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. The only Javascript I've used > is server side code in an ASP. But I don't want to start an argument about > it! Suffice to say that the code is embedded in the header of the web page > and interpreted by the browser not the server. :) that's javascript described perfectly -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Stealing images was Re: filmscanners: Importance of Copyright on Images
Rob writes: > AFAIK it's java since it's client side code. Javascript is usually client-side, too, although it can be used on either side. You'll know it's Java if it takes half an hour to execute; if it executes instantly, it's Javascript. Anyway, all you have to do is turn off Java or Javascript to get past things like this. Some surfers, including myself, have these turned off by default for security reasons. If the display of your image depends on Java or Javascript, and your visitor doesn't have it, chances are he will simply leave the site rather than try to find a way to see your image.
